The Main Problem with Fighters


Pathfinder First Edition General Discussion

1,851 to 1,900 of 3,805 << first < prev | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | next > last >>
Shadow Lodge

Yeah I didn't really mind lemmy's remark, it just gave me some perspective.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
If everyone thinks fighters are inferior then why is there a 37 page argument that goes in circles about caster vs fighter?

Quite a bit (perhaps more) of the thread has also been fighter vs barbarian/paladin/ranger, rather than fighter vs caster. IIRC relatively few people tried to argue that fighters are on par with full casters, at least not in any sustained fashion - I recall occasional drive by posts that claimed such however. There are also occasional comparisons to other classes, like magus, that take a predominantly martial role.

There has indeed however been a lot of repetition in this thread about both the topic of fighter vs caster and the topic of fighter compared to his fellow core full BAB classes. Nothing wrong with that I guess. Posting is fun, and all. Plus occasional sustained derailings, such as the argument a few pages back about whether the ranger was a better martial class for beginners.

Personally, fighter vs barbarian/paladin/ranger is a more interesting topic for me because I think there are a lot more useful comparisons to be made. It is a lot more straightforward to compare two martial classes than it is to compare a martial class with a full spellcaster.

Shadow Lodge

Yeah all in good fun i suppose. Still nobody has found something wrong about the flying cleric tank argument that lets 1 level of fighter be more powerful than straight caster.


gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
My first level gnome sorcerer can do 5d4+5 in 15ft cone 4 times per day.
Unless there's something I'm missing, he can't do that until 5th. At 1st, he does 1d4+1, save for half. Either way, KO is better, because it essentially deals infinity points of damage, when you walk up and coup de grace the little sleepy-heads.

Gnomes can get pyromaniac, which gives them +1CL with fire.

Loreseeker regional trait gives you +1 CL with 3 spells.
Gifted Adept magical trait gives you +1 with 1 spell

That's 4d4+4 with draconic bloodline, or 4d4+8 with crossblooded.

In order to do at first level 5d4+5, it needs to be human (spell focus + spell specialization). It's 5d4+10 with a human crossblooded draconic/orc sorcerer.

EDIT: ko is better if he fails the save. With 5d4+10, any first level CR dies regardless of saving throw.

Trait bonuses don’t stack

you can’t be human and gnome.
Neither draconic bloodline or the crossblooded archetype grants a bonus to CL.

I agree fighters can do with a boost or even a total rewrite, but bad arguments don’t really help.

Also, as some posters fail to mention. Cones are always risky for a sorcerer or wizard to use and burning hands pretty much suck (unless you fight swarms or if used as a utility spell) once you past the first low levels.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Lemmy wrote:


R_Chance wrote:

*sigh* All right, before I get any farther in catching up in this dead horse beating par... uh thread, no doubt you and a half dozen other people will jump in and teach him the error of his opinion. That's fine. It could be done without "stupid" coming up though. Many people find that rather insulting. If you were in one of my classes I'd tell you to find you manners wherever you left them. Here I can only suggest you find them and remind you of the "don't be a jerk" rule of the board owners. Whatever a persons opinion and however well, or poorly, founded it is conversations can be civil. My 2 cp, ymmv.

Saying something someone said is stupid is not the same as calling said person stupid. I'm sure even Eistein said a lot of stupid stuff at some point in his life.

I wasn't saying the poster or his opinion was stupid, only that the points he made were. I'll admit that I didn't need to use that particular word, but I'll also say that this is hardly something heart-breaking or incredibly offensive.

This is the internet, we all can use some thicker skins...

It's the internet and we could all use some better manners too.

True about thicker skins, but saying the points are stupid is about a half step from saying the poster is. Maybe what grabbed me about your post is that you usually don't say the "s" word. You disagree and you lay out why or give examples. This guy is new to this thread and fairly new to this board by post count. He seems to have ignored what bothered me anyway. Give him a break and have some patience. Not everyone has been through a dozen of the inevitable fighter-caster threads. I think I could post both sides of this in my sleep. I just keep wandering in hoping for something fresh :)

I'll probably drop by in another few hundred posts and see if anything has developed... so carry on.

Scarab Sages

Zark wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
My first level gnome sorcerer can do 5d4+5 in 15ft cone 4 times per day.
Unless there's something I'm missing, he can't do that until 5th. At 1st, he does 1d4+1, save for half. Either way, KO is better, because it essentially deals infinity points of damage, when you walk up and coup de grace the little sleepy-heads.

Gnomes can get pyromaniac, which gives them +1CL with fire.

Loreseeker regional trait gives you +1 CL with 3 spells.
Gifted Adept magical trait gives you +1 with 1 spell

That's 4d4+4 with draconic bloodline, or 4d4+8 with crossblooded.

In order to do at first level 5d4+5, it needs to be human (spell focus + spell specialization). It's 5d4+10 with a human crossblooded draconic/orc sorcerer.

EDIT: ko is better if he fails the save. With 5d4+10, any first level CR dies regardless of saving throw.

Trait bonuses don’t stack

you can’t be human and gnome.
Neither draconic bloodline or the crossblooded archetype grants a bonus to CL.

I agree fighters can do with a boost or even a total rewrite, but false arguments don’t really help.

Also, as some posters fail to mention. Cones are always risky for a sorcerer or wizard to use and burning hands pretty much suck (unless you fight swarms or if used as a utility spell) once you past the first low levels.

Given that, and sorting it out, you can still do some decent damage:

Gnome Crossblooded Draconic/Orc
Trait - Gifted Adept, Havoc of the Society
Pyromaniac Alternate Racial Trait

Pyro - Treated as one higher
Gifted - Spell is at +1 CL
Draconic - 1 extra damage per die rolled
Orc - 1 extra damage per die rolled
Havoc - 1 extra damage (Force)

So with that, a Level 1 Sorcerer with Burning Hands can do 3d6+7. It may be tricky to position with a cone, but remember that once you get fireball, you can do (n+1)d6 + (n+1)2 + 1, where n is the sorcerer level. Ex: 6th level Sorcerer casting Fireball - (6+1)d6 + (6+1)2 + 1 = 7d6+15


The main problem with stuff being "fresh" on either side, is that until something changes, there's nothing new to discuss.

I just post in the hopes of A.) Convincing other people, B.) Venting frustration, and C.) In the slim hope that Paizo will take some of these complaints to heart one day.


Rynjin wrote:


The main problem with stuff being "fresh" on either side, is that until something changes, there's nothing new to discuss.

I just post in the hopes of A.) Convincing other people, B.) Venting frustration, and C.) In the slim hope that Paizo will take some of these complaints to heart one day.

Have to admit, "B" is probably your best bet of working out :)


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
For the Full Plate remark, I've known games where the GM gives very high 1st level gold because the campaign was unfair so he wanted to balance out the High CR with Higher quality equipment.

I've NEVER needed more gold than what you get at 1st level with a Ranger, Barbarian, or Paladin. Tower shields are a sick joke (did you notice the -2 penalty to all your attacks while wearing it, and the fact you're stuck a +1 maximum dexterity forever?).

Ranger/Paladin, chainmail, heavy wooden shield, +2 Dexterity. AC 20 at 1st level, or 18 with a 2 hander. Loadout includes 5 gp worth of supplies, sling, and club.

Quote:
Rangers are alright, I'll admit that rangers can be much more effective, but the favored enemy is a weakness as well as a strength because I know people who build more effective casters than melee expecting to always fight favored enemy which is not a class problem just like people building skill trick pony fighters which takes away from the class.

Favored enemy is gravy. It pops up and says "Hi, I saw on your tag that you've signed up for our complimentary first-class asskicking. Please step this way." when you come across your favored enemy. Of course, Rangers are still competent martials and don't actually need favored enemy to deal significant damage until later levels (because being Aragorn is plenty at lower levels).


Rynjin wrote:

The main problem with stuff being "fresh" on either side, is that until something changes, there's nothing new to discuss.

I just post in the hopes of A.) Convincing other people, B.) Venting frustration, and C.) In the slim hope that Paizo will take some of these complaints to heart one day.

Can I ask, why A? I understand B and C, but why do you have to convince other people they're wrong? Does it bother you if someone likes the Fighter? If someone thinks their fighter is as good as their friend's Barbarian/Ranger/Paladin?


1 person marked this as a favorite.

Why? It's simple really: Just like with all other balance issues, if there's a debate, the developers are less likely to change it.

If there's a clear consensus, with few dissenters, it's more likely to be recognized as a legitimate issue.

It's the same problem TF2's Pyro had/has. We argued for YEARS for even the tiniest changes to be made to the class, because unskilled players (outnumbering those of us who played Competitive or just at a higher skill level who knew what we were talking about and ran the math repeatedly, to no avail) thought the class was overpowered and skill-less.

The same thing occurred in that game with certain overpowered items (Oooh, the pre real nerf Tomislav still gives me nightmares), they were only nerfed once the dissenters eventually got bored of trolling, piped down, swapped sides, or just weren't in large enough number to be seen through the crowd of people in agreement and the raw facts.

Developers are always more likely to listen to a unified front than a divided one.


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Rynjin wrote:

The main problem with stuff being "fresh" on either side, is that until something changes, there's nothing new to discuss.

I just post in the hopes of A.) Convincing other people, B.) Venting frustration, and C.) In the slim hope that Paizo will take some of these complaints to heart one day.

The problem is that from several employee comments they don't think there's an issue. IMO they're still playing 2nd edition with PF rules. The problem is that they are still using their old assumptions about how and why the game works while carrying 3rd edtions flaws forward. Don't get me wrong they fixed a LOT of the game, but several things show thay they still have an older edition mindset. I recognize it because I was the same way until several different gamers pointed small things out to me and it changed how I saw the game. Here's a small list

1.The rogue is a great class as long as you hold onto the old idea that traps are TPK's. Its also a great class because it can still do everything it used to do back in the day(use rogue type skills). BUT both of those ideas are no longer true. Traps are an encounter like any other just as easily beaten with no rogue or even the ability to find magic traps. It also ignores the fact that the(Collapsed from 3) skill list now allows an incredible number of classes to fill most of those roguish roles. Then there's the ever expanding list of spells that perform every(almost)thing that these skills can do with almost no resources lost. It all swims into focus

2.Fighters are a great class because they can still do more damage than everyone else just like in previous editions. Never mind that previous editions weren't based on hex grid combat, that a fighter did significantly more damage(as a percent of things HD) in one shot than in 3rd or PF. PLus fighters used to have some of the best saves in the games, but the fact that they only got one good save plus the "arms race" of pushing DC's that didn't exist in earlier editions. Add in the fact that fighters are the only class without supernatural powers to get 2 skill points because he doesn't need skills he has feats(unless he can't qualify for them because of stats needed) I think point buy has hurt the fighter as well, but I'll save my point buy argument for another rant.

Now having said all these things I'd like to add that I love this game, the company, and I've never seen a company that was this proactive or open with their fans(hell I worked in gaming distribution and couldn't get the kind of answers from the people making the games at some companies that Paizo employees just post to the net and Zocchi was trying to buy literal palettes of their products). I just think they fall into the same trap that others do. They assume that everyone is playing a very similar game to their game and that's not true.


Rynjin wrote:


It's the same problem TF2's Pyro had/has. We argued for YEARS for even the tiniest changes to be made to the class, because unskilled players (outnumbering those of us who played Competitive or just at a higher skill level who knew what we were talking about and ran the math repeatedly, to no avail) thought the class was overpowered and skill-less.

The same thing occurred in that game with certain overpowered items (Oooh, the pre real nerf Tomislav still gives me nightmares), they were only nerfed once the dissenters eventually got bored of trolling, piped down, swapped sides, or just weren't in large enough number to be seen through the crowd of people in agreement and the raw facts.

I have no idea of what any of that means.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
One good application of fighter is cleric12/fighter1. then domains like sun domain that lets you add cleric level to channel when harming undead and alternate favored class option for aasimar and a phylactery of positive channeling. Then you can be in full plate with an earthbreaker and as a bonus feat improved crit earthbreaker. then you have feats like improved channel, extra channel, versatile channeler and channel smite. then on a smite you can do a total of 10d6+18 damage or 9+2d6+8d6/2 if they make their will save. Maybe fighters alone aren't great, but this way you can have better feats than armor and proficiency feats. For instance angel blood, angelic flesh, and angel wings for a flying cleric tank. And thats with just one level of fighter.

This is some sort of sick joke right? You're giving up 7th level spells for heavy armor proficiency? *mind asplode*

Cleric 13, spends one of his many mostly unnecessary feats on Heavy Armor Proficiency (oh wait, you didn't notice that Clerics made do with only 7 feats in 3.5 but have 10 feat in Pathfinder?). Doesn't waste overwhelming amounts of resources on optimizing channel positive energy (that's only useful against undead and even then is a waste of resources) that gets worse as you gain levels.

The Build
Cleric 13
Feats: Heavy Armor Proficiency, Skill Focus (Craft) x 6

Sees an undead thing. Casts disrupting weapon on insert baller deity weapon or longspear here. Pokes undead a few times. Undead makes a DC 21 save a couple of times or is destroyed. Or summons a celestial dinosaur to smack his enemy for 4d6+19 damage round after round after round.


1 person marked this as a favorite.

What didn't you get?

Breakdown:

1 class was (still is, really) underpowered. Many noobs and newbs thought it was overpowered and skill-less, despite mountains of math and factual evidence to the contrary. Valve (the developer) saw these dissenters, said "Yeah whatev, guess the class is OP" and nerfed it multiple times, before finally "buffing" the class again years later (basically all they did was revert the previously applied nerfs).

The Pyro is basically Team Fortress 2's Monk.

On the other end of the spectrum, a number of items (including one called the Tomislav) were overpowered, demonstrably and ludicrously so, and there was again a mound of math and evidence to prove this. Nevertheless trolls and noobs disagreed, and Valve listened to these, not nerfing the item until they shut up or switched sides.

The Tomislav is <Insert OP class here> that actually was nerfed at some point, but only after massive uproar. Could also stand as a nega-example of a class that needs to be buffed but hasn't been yet.

Currently, there is another weapon (The Wrangler) that is demonstrably, clearly, and ludicrously OP, that has been so since its release and shows no sign of being nerfed before the game dies a slow fiery death because trolls and newbs think it's either balanced or even underpowered, and Valve thinks it's fine that it's gamebreakingly powerful because the class is reliant on an outside element (a bit of teamwork and his Sentry Gun) to be viable.

The Wrangler is 9 level spellcasting, the Engineer is the Wizard, and the Sentry Gun is his spellbook.

Make sense now?


I think the main difference between the "fighter-haters" and the "fighter-lovers" (or "fighter-disappointed-ers" and "fighter-okayers," whatever) is the level of play. Fighter, Monks, and Rogues have always done fine at my table but my players are not "optimizers" by any stretch of the imagination. No one has shown up at my table with a RageLancePounce Barbarian or a Beastmorph-Vivisectionist Alchemist, no one I know has ever run the DPS on a character. I think these kind of problems come up as you start to push the limits of the game. This is not to say "optimizing" or "power-gaming" or whatever you what to call it are bad. I just think the different play styles reveal different problems. This is also probably why the devs don't see a problem. From what I have gathered from these forums, they tend to run a more casual game.


Rynjin wrote:

What didn't you get?

Breakdown:

1 class was (still is, really) underpowered. Many noobs and newbs thought it was overpowered and skill-less, despite mountains of math and factual evidence to the contrary. Valve (the developer) saw these dissenters, said "Yeah whatev, guess the class is OP" and nerfed it multiple times, before finally "buffing" the class again years later (basically all they did was revert the previously applied nerfs).

The Pyro is basically Team Fortress 2's Monk.

On the other end of the spectrum, a number of items (including one called the Tomislav) were overpowered, demonstrably and ludicrously so, and there was again a mound of math and evidence to prove this. Nevertheless trolls and noobs disagreed, and Valve listened to these, not nerfing the item until they shut up or switched sides.

The Tomislav is <Insert OP class here> that actually was nerfed at some point, but only after massive uproar. Could also stand as a nega-example of a class that needs to be buffed but hasn't been yet.

Currently, there is another weapon (The Wrangler) that is demonstrably, clearly, and ludicrously OP, that has been so since its release and shows no sign of being nerfed before the game dies a slow fiery death because trolls and newbs think it's either balanced or even underpowered, and Valve thinks it's fine that it's gamebreakingly powerful because the class is reliant on an outside element (a bit of teamwork and his Sentry Gun) to be viable.

The Wrangler is 9 level spellcasting, the Engineer is the Wizard, and the Sentry Gun is his spellbook.

Make sense now?

Ahh, not a game I play. Sorry wasn't trying to get you to explain all that, was more making a joke about the jargon.

But yes, makes sense.


Ah. It's a game I used to play a lot, both just for fun and competitively for a year, and I spent a lot of time on the forums (Think I spend too much time here? I racked up over 10k posts in a year over there).

When I think of balance discussions I usually think of them in TF2 terms by default.


Zark wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
Kirth Gersen wrote:
gustavo iglesias wrote:
My first level gnome sorcerer can do 5d4+5 in 15ft cone 4 times per day.
Unless there's something I'm missing, he can't do that until 5th. At 1st, he does 1d4+1, save for half. Either way, KO is better, because it essentially deals infinity points of damage, when you walk up and coup de grace the little sleepy-heads.

Gnomes can get pyromaniac, which gives them +1CL with fire.

Loreseeker regional trait gives you +1 CL with 3 spells.
Gifted Adept magical trait gives you +1 with 1 spell

That's 4d4+4 with draconic bloodline, or 4d4+8 with crossblooded.

In order to do at first level 5d4+5, it needs to be human (spell focus + spell specialization). It's 5d4+10 with a human crossblooded draconic/orc sorcerer.

EDIT: ko is better if he fails the save. With 5d4+10, any first level CR dies regardless of saving throw.

Trait bonuses don’t stack

you can’t be human and gnome.
Neither draconic bloodline or the crossblooded archetype grants a bonus to CL.

I agree fighters can do with a boost or even a total rewrite, but bad arguments don’t really help.

Also, as some posters fail to mention. Cones are always risky for a sorcerer or wizard to use and burning hands pretty much suck (unless you fight swarms or if used as a utility spell) once you past the first low levels.

gifted adept isn't a trait bonus. It's untyped. Draconic and orc grant bonuses to damage, that's why it's 4d4+8 or 5d4+10 instead of just 4d4 or 5d4.

nd yes, you can't be humam and gnome. That's why gnome does 4d4 and human 5d4 at level 1. Gnome lacks a feat and humans lack pyromaniac


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I think the main difference between the "fighter-haters" and the "fighter-lovers" (or "fighter-disappointed-ers" and "fighter-okayers," whatever) is the level of play. Fighter, Monks, and Rogues have always done fine at my table but my players are not "optimizers" by any stretch of the imagination. No one has shown up at my table with a RageLancePounce Barbarian or a Beastmorph-Vivisectionist Alchemist, no one I know has ever run the DPS on a character. I think these kind of problems come up as you start to push the limits of the game. This is not to say "optimizing" or "power-gaming" or whatever you what to call it are bad. I just think the different play styles reveal different problems. This is also probably why the devs don't see a problem. From what I have gathered from these forums, they tend to run a more casual game.

My games usually tend towards alchemist who fire flintlock pistols that do not target touch-AC (IE - not Pathfinder firearms) with one hand and occasionally throw a bomb with the other.

Rangers that look similar to Aragorn in form and focus.

Paladins who wield greatswords.

Wizards who cast haste.

Clerics that heal, fight, or animate undead.

Bards who...do a bit of everything.

Longswords are a favorite weapon of most of the martials.

They fight stuff like bandits, owlbears, gators, manticors, basilisks, undead, and outsiders.

They sometimes have to figure out how to carry a few tons of copper coins back to civilization.

Fighters are found lacking in these games.

EDIT: 15 point buy.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I think the main difference between the "fighter-haters" and the "fighter-lovers" (or "fighter-disappointed-ers" and "fighter-okayers," whatever) is the level of play. Fighter, Monks, and Rogues have always done fine at my table but my players are not "optimizers" by any stretch of the imagination. No one has shown up at my table with a RageLancePounce Barbarian or a Beastmorph-Vivisectionist Alchemist, no one I know has ever run the DPS on a character. I think these kind of problems come up as you start to push the limits of the game. This is not to say "optimizing" or "power-gaming" or whatever you what to call it are bad. I just think the different play styles reveal different problems. This is also probably why the devs don't see a problem. From what I have gathered from these forums, they tend to run a more casual game.

Not only because the level of optimization. Also because if the game level. Below lvl 6, fighters are fairly competitive in combat.

Beyond lvl 9,they gas out. By lvl 15, tgey are a resource draining sponge. At lvl 2-3 enemies don't fly,use few dirty magic tricks, abd combats stay mundane and fair. By level 15, fighters get Mazed with no save and require from party members resources to be able to act.

YEsterday I DMed. Fight was at lvl 17, a big BBEG fight. The cleric lich casted Wind of Vengeance, Dust Form, Antilife Shell and Repulsion, among others (such as Gate to a Inmolation Devil) during time stop. The necromancer casted acid fog and quickened black tentacles in the first round, effectively cutting movement to 1/4. Shortly after that, the cleric and Wizard casted maximized firestorms, coldstrikes and fireballs.

Fighters in a fight like tgat are just a resource draining machine. They can't do anything at all to splve that. However,the party had an inquisitor,summoner and Magus instead, so tgey could finally dispell everything and shutdown tge lich, with tge inquisitor archer doing 370 dmg in one turn. Could a fighter do more? Maybe,or maybe not. Wgat he couldn't do, for sure, is to dispel the wind of vwngeance buff that made him bow-inmune


Rynjin wrote:
How do you get 10d6 Shocking Grasps at 1st level?

You don't. Why i tried to say is that you are tough enough at level 1 to be on par or above the average fighter, and in tge long run you can cast mirtor image, displacement ir fly, while keeping your first level spells for damage. You have enough first level slots to be using 10d6 shocking grasps all day long in every combatcround of every fight, becouse if cheap pearls of powers and the magus mechanic to recover spells


Ashiel wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I think the main difference between the "fighter-haters" and the "fighter-lovers" (or "fighter-disappointed-ers" and "fighter-okayers," whatever) is the level of play. Fighter, Monks, and Rogues have always done fine at my table but my players are not "optimizers" by any stretch of the imagination. No one has shown up at my table with a RageLancePounce Barbarian or a Beastmorph-Vivisectionist Alchemist, no one I know has ever run the DPS on a character. I think these kind of problems come up as you start to push the limits of the game. This is not to say "optimizing" or "power-gaming" or whatever you what to call it are bad. I just think the different play styles reveal different problems. This is also probably why the devs don't see a problem. From what I have gathered from these forums, they tend to run a more casual game.

My games usually tend towards alchemist who fire flintlock pistols that do not target touch-AC (IE - not Pathfinder firearms) with one hand and occasionally throw a bomb with the other.

Rangers that look similar to Aragorn in form and focus.

Paladins who wield greatswords.

Wizards who cast haste.

Clerics that heal, fight, or animate undead.

Bards who...do a bit of everything.

Longswords are a favorite weapon of most of the martials.

They fight stuff like bandits, owlbears, gators, manticors, basilisks, undead, and outsiders.

They sometimes have to figure out how to carry a few tons of copper coins back to civilization.

Fighters are found lacking in these games.

EDIT: 15 point buy.

I don't think that contradicts anything I said. You can optimize Paladins, Wizards, and Clerics. I just don't think the average player and the average player on the forum are playing the game at the same level. Now to be fair, I could be totally wrong. I have been playing for fifteen years but with the same guys more or less. I can say out of the less than 20 people I've gamed with, I'm the only one to visit this site. And I found my way here quite by accident. Until I came here, I had never heard DPS or action economy. I had never heard anyone refer to their character as a build or a toon. Again, I'm not trying to present my way as better or the true way to play or any such nonsense. I just don't think the average person picking up this game and playing with friends is going to have any trouble running a Fighter. I'm not a game designer but I don't think you "balance" a class by saying, "what is the very limit of what a class can do?"


Quote:


I don't think that contradicts anything I said. You can optimize Paladins, Wizards, and Clerics. I just don't think the average player and the average player on the forum are playing the game at the same level. Now to be fair, I could be totally wrong. I have been playing for fifteen years but with the same guys more or less. I can say out of the less than 20 people I've gamed with, I'm the only one to...

Most of us wouldn't find any digfetence between piloting a F1 Red Bull and a F1 Force India. That doesn't mean they are equal, and certainly they don't finish tge race at same position.

Even when players don't optimize, once you start playing 2 digit levels, the fighter falls apart. Almst anything he fights has stuff that the fighter is powerless against


1 person marked this as a favorite.
proftobe wrote:
. . .PLus fighters used to have some of the best saves in the games. . .

This one is lulz, because 1) it's true and 2) so many people say "fighters shouldn't have better saves because: tradition. Why, they've had crap saves ever since third edition! Giving fighters better saves can't be justified."

*bangs head against the wall repeatedly*


Arguecat wrote:
proftobe wrote:
. . .PLus fighters used to have some of the best saves in the games. . .

This one is lulz, because 1) it's true and 2) so many people say "fighters shouldn't have better saves because: tradition. Why, they've had crap saves ever since third edition! Giving fighters better saves can't be justified."

*bangs head against the wall repeatedly*

they started with quite crappy, but had a very goid progression. By the end game they had the absolute best

Shadow Lodge

I will admit that fighters are worse than alot of classes and suck unless used in hard to make combos. But the last thing I post is that fighters have prevented TPK 3 times a day while paladin and barbarian were useless and unused, rogue got smacked down then refused to go infront of fighter and casters were only shooting lasers, and ranger was just shooting.I have never played with a melee ranger. without fighter our group would be DEAD. VERY VERY VERY DEAD!!!!! Still fighter should be rewritten or have a genuinely effective archetype/alternate class. "The Main Problem with Fighters is still the 38 page arguement on "The Main Problem with Fighters"!


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
I will admit that fighters are worse than alot of classes and suck unless used in hard to make combos. But the last thing I post is that fighters have prevented TPK 3 times a day while paladin and barbarian were useless and unused, rogue got smacked down then refused to go infront of fighter and casters were only shooting lasers, and ranger was just shooting.I have never played with a melee ranger. without fighter our group would be DEAD. VERY VERY VERY DEAD!!!!! Still fighter should be rewritten or have a genuinely effective archetype/alternate class. "The Main Problem with Fighters is still the 38 page arguement on "The Main Problem with Fighters"!

Fighter's are a sensitive button. Next to a Wizard it's the most iconic part of a party so people want what's best for him.

And people will fight for his usefulness because in games like the one I'm running right now. In the game I'm running barring one player the party is full of fairly unoptimized characters favoring generalization over producing powerful plays and having a tough guy that can wade through combat is really useful especially since they aren't doing much damage and the spellcasters are focused on shooting lasers.

But in the game I'm playing right now a fighter would be terrible. The DM has a hard time keeping things alive for the rest of their villain speech. Last game some spellcaster with a ton of minions opens with a huge spell that deals a lot of damage to us, then on his next turn he's trying to teleport away but we've spent our round debuffing him using spells and abilities to make it hard for him to cast spells and functionally full attacking with crits despite him being on a balcony 10 feet in the air. Oh and all his minions are dead. a fighter in that situation would have been pointless he would have killed one dude and then probably moved to the stairs to get to the guy two rounds later.

The game's roles really start breaking down once the spellcasters find out that shooting a beam or healing is the least powerful thing you can do and they have a lot of ammo beyond spells that can be abused. Put in a bunch of noob casters and they're almost useless in a number of situations but once you get a Wizard played buy a guy who likes to look for broken combinations of effects they can outright end a situation that would have taking several rounds to deal with.

And this isn't really an opinion, I've seen articles on WotC's website explicitly saying that they set things up so that fighters are more useful early levels and Wizards are more useful later.

After all that I still really like the Fighter, but what gets my goat is when other melee classes seem to encroach on his territory or get cooler stuff while still being a melee badass.

An example I posted earlier was the combat style feats that a Ranger gets. He gets weapon style feats that bypass prereqs and the Fighter doesn't? Donkeyballs! 90% of the planet is magical, I need some feats against a little bit of it. Why can't I get an evasion feat chain or a little bit more than Iron Will to help me not get mind controlled?

Even the Monk who is the most cried over class in the game gets to do things like become immortal and punch through walls with his bare hands and jump 20 feet in the air and suplex a dragon.

So as a result despite being the most iconic character in D&D lore I've seen one Fighter other than myself at a table, an arrow guy who was useless through out the entire 3 session module.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:


I'm not a game designer but I don't think you "balance" a class by saying, "what is the very limit of what a class can do?"

You don't, this is true.

But you also don't balance for "What is the very minimum of what a class can do?" either.

You balance for the middle of the road, the average skilled player, not 6's or Plat Highlander...balls I've actually made this exact same argument on the TF2 forums a hundred times too. =/

Anywho, my point is that while problems may be hidden, or exacerbated, at both the extreme low AND high levels of skill/system mastery, and this should mostly be ignored (noted, but not acted upon), if the system, or class, or any feature of any game really starts to break down, be put under stress, or over/underperform relative to the rest of the game at the mid levels of skill? It deserves looking at.

The Fighter is in this position. Given an average level of system mastery, an equivalent Fighter will be less effective than an equivalent Ranger, Paladin, or Barbarian, and that's the issue that needs to be addressed.

If it were simply a matter of "You need average system mastery to be effective AT ALL, and unskilled players will be frustrated" that would be fine-ish (still bad, but not urgent), or if it was a matter of "At extreme high levels the Fighter is outperformed in DPR by 30 points by the Barbarian, even though all else was equal" it would be nigh perfect, but that isn't the case.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I don't think that contradicts anything I said. You can optimize Paladins, Wizards, and Clerics. I just don't think the average player and the average player on the forum are playing the game at the same level.

You can. But like you, I'm the forum guy in our group (mostly because I'm more heavily vested in the game than most). Most of my friends don't post here, and a few of them only read the forums once in a blue moon and I think between them have maybe 15 posts on the board over the last two to three years (because I said they should check out the forums :P).

These things I describe are very mundane. They are not really drawing from a lot of material to be exceptionally powerful. The alchemist for example isn't near any of the forum level of optimizations. Instead, this is my brother's dwarf alchemist who is theme before form, using a non-touch AC guns and tossing bombs occasionally.

Charisma prime Paladins with greatswords. Is it optimized? Well greatsword was chosen 'cause you can can release your hand to cast or channel as a free action so it's more like just knowing the rules.

Nobody here is wandering around with 4 vestigial arms, wielding 3d6 hammers, etc. They're not fighting pimped out super enemies that you need to push the limits to deal with effectively. Just normal bestiary stuff and some NPCs in most cases.

And they're doing it on 15 point buy, so it's not even like their multi-ability dependency is being ignored. My point is they're just playing the classes for what the classes give them. Most of them aren't crazy races (I'll admit one of the players sometimes makes me grimace with some of his "concepts").

But fighters I've found do not do well in this sort of game. Again because they are only good at hitting stuff or doing what commoners can do. Because they're not all optimized to the hilt means it shows up even more glaringly. If you're a rule guru you can really do a lot to hide the fighter's shortcomings (dwarf fighter with racial trait and feats to buff saves, favored class to skills since you get a +2 to Con and Wisdom anyway, grab the viking or unbreakable archetype, multiclass 1-2 levels of monk - ideally master of many styles archetype), but when the group isn't filled with people who are good at optimization it's where it rears its head the most.


Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I think the main difference between the "fighter-haters" and the "fighter-lovers" (or "fighter-disappointed-ers" and "fighter-okayers," whatever) is the level of play. Fighter, Monks, and Rogues have always done fine at my table but my players are not "optimizers" by any stretch of the imagination. No one has shown up at my table with a RageLancePounce Barbarian or a Beastmorph-Vivisectionist Alchemist, no one I know has ever run the DPS on a character.

I don't speak for everyone here, but I don't really think much of build theorycrafting or DPR calculations either (and I don't try to figure them out for my fighter).

And I actually think that DPR is the opposite of the problem with fighters, for what it is worth. I've posted about what I feel are the problems with fighters before, and tried to be very clear that I don't think increasing "DPR" is the solution to the problems I see.

I do play a fighter at 15th level though, which seems to be the level by which - looking upthread a little - even the people who think fighters are okay at lower levels consider fighters to be little more than a "resource draining sponge."

I think that's slightly exaggerated myself, at least, in my play experience. There are certainly combats in which that is the case, but it does not happen every time. However, it has certainly become increasingly frequent, to the point where now even our party casters (who have typically been very openhanded with sharing their boons with the fighters in the past) have begun talking about how unhappy they are getting with the scale of resources me and my fellow fighter are sucking out of them.

Shadow Lodge

If anyone wants a possible solution to fighters not healing look up the thread making the fighter last all day. A guy named Petty Alchmey made an addition that gives fighters fast healing 1(scales +1 every four levels. For people like him its a bonus feature all fighters get and for stricter DMs then each time the fighter gets damaged its deactivated for 1 minute.(each damage delays further) and maybe replacing armour training. This could make fighters at leasts as effective as paladins because

1). You aren't a funkiller for the party by insisting on following laws

2). Instead of having to use loh after tough fights to heal yourself and needing to rest to gain back buffs and LOH used in and after the fight. you can take a 10 minute nap and be ready

3). Fighters stop using healing resources and just have to upgrade weapons which is unevadable for any martial class save magus


When I read the OP say: "Fighters either need a boost to their dps so they are the king of their specialization or..."
My stomach immediately went sour. Immeadiately.

What I say to my players: "DPS is an MMO term. If you're looking for that, find someone to run a 4th Edition game for you.
If you can't learn to break that mental association, you are not welcome in my games. End of discussion."

(takes a few antacid - seriously)


4 people marked this as a favorite.

Did you have anything useful to say or did you just want to b+#+% about the use of a term that's just as applicable (besides with a single letter change)?

It's just more of the mindless, pointless, elitist hatred of MMOs (and video games in general by some) and 4th Ed (a game which I'm convinced most of the extreme haters have never touched, just listened to complaints from others).

@Monk: That might be an interesting fix. Turn Fighter into Wolverine, let him recover from grievous wounds in minutes. Kinda increases his effective HP to over the Barbarian's (out of Rage, probably) but that's not really a terrible thing since the Barb gets DR (and lots of it if he takes a common archetype).


1 person marked this as a favorite.
Coriat wrote:
Durngrun Stonebreaker wrote:
I think the main difference between the "fighter-haters" and the "fighter-lovers" (or "fighter-disappointed-ers" and "fighter-okayers," whatever) is the level of play. Fighter, Monks, and Rogues have always done fine at my table but my players are not "optimizers" by any stretch of the imagination. No one has shown up at my table with a RageLancePounce Barbarian or a Beastmorph-Vivisectionist Alchemist, no one I know has ever run the DPS on a character.

I don't speak for everyone here, but I don't really think much of build theorycrafting or DPR calculations either (and I don't try to figure them out for my fighter).

And I actually think that DPR is the opposite of the problem with fighters, for what it is worth. I've posted about what I feel are the problems with fighters before, and tried to be very clear that I don't think increasing "DPR" is the solution to the problems I see.

I do play a fighter at 15th level though, which seems to be the level by which - looking upthread a little - even the people who think fighters are okay at lower levels consider fighters to be little more than a "resource draining sponge."

I think that's slightly exaggerated myself, at least, in my play experience. There are certainly combats in which that is the case, but it does not happen every time. However, it has certainly become increasingly frequent, to the point where now even our party casters (who have typically been very openhanded with sharing their boons with the fighters in the past) have begun talking about how unhappy they are getting with the scale of resources me and my fellow fighter are sucking out of them.

I played a high level Fighter in Kingmaker. Finished as 17th (15th level fighter, 2nd level barbarian, for roleplaying reasons). DPR was not an issue, I was doing 350+ damage in each full round, including team buffs. Sure, other classes can do more, with rage-pouncing riding a tiger or with six armed eidolons using revolvers or whatever, but it's pointless. I did take down Nyrissia within a single full round (again, with buffs from the team mates). So damage is not a problem.

The problem is I was utterly useless in every other situation. Even with a lot of effort made to try to be self-suficient and not draining resources For example, I drank like 15.000gp in fly potions (Fly-cola we called it), to avoid the forcing the casters to cast a 3rd level spell on me every time we faced a flying monster. Which means almost every single encounter past a certain level. Even then, I was completelly dependant on team-mates for almost everything. Whenever I was level-drained, or whatever, somebody else had to appear and help me.

I remember my weapon got sundered by some high-powered evil treants. I was useless, and hopeless, even if I had some points in craft (blacksmith). Fortunately, the cleric had made a scroll of Make Whole, used a pearl of power, and casted Greater Magic Weapon on it. So we went from "oh, crap, we are in a hurry" to "ok, let's keep going forward" in 2 rounds.
That's the difference between a Tier 5 and a Tier 1 character. Both can fight, both can deplete a monster's hp pool. Both take hits, and have AC and saves. But the fighter can't bring ANYTHING to the table except hitting stuff and being hit by stuff. While high Tier chars can heal negative levels, cure poisons, summon scouts, protect his friends against dangerous breath weapons, find the correct path, teleport the party around, and repair destroyed gear with a blink of their eyes.

Shadow Lodge

first Thanks to Petty Alchemist for his thread and idea "Making the Fighter Last all Day"
second, gustavo if resource draining is a problem then take multiclassing as an option and if you go with a casting class then, save magi, you have more proficiencies than others of your casting class, and if you go divine then you can generally have a higher AC then others of your class.


(takes a deep breath - finds a little zen)
The post is titled: "The Main Problem with Fighters"
The use of that term paints the scenario perfectly, with the title.
The problem isn't the class, so much as how someone's choosing to view it.
Bigger totals may be better, but if you're going to gripe about "class balance and dps output", MMOs should be the field of choice.

There's this whole new wave of players who expect games with classes to be more smash-button-win, and it's depressing.
MMORPGs were born from games like D&D, yet have inadvertently poisoned the mindset required to enjoy them as they are.

The point of an RPG - Role Playing Game for those who have forgotten - is generally the story.
Classes and abilities and combat give you the means to drive it forward, but unless you're playing a battle-focal campaign, should not direct it.

Let's assume I'm being a jerk, and that the game in question IS battle focused.
If you sincerely believe that one class is bad, then ignore that and pick one better for your purpose.

Expecting perfect class balance in a game intended to be story-driven is a logical knot.
Even if the classes were 100% perfectly balanced without a single flaw, someone would disagree.

How much energy is wasted trying to change something tons of people are happy with, when you alone (or in small groups) disagree?
Wouldn't that energy be better spent finding something that actually does fit your preferences?
Or even finding a way to make it work for you?

There's talk about giving fighters a way to heal themselves.

MMO logic really has little to no place in Pathfinder and similar RPGs, again, except for 4th Edition, which is intentionally built to be like that.

It's easy to see it as someone who has-done/is-doing both.
A fight in a PC Game: Tank soaks hits, DPS nuke down, healer keeps tank up.

That level of flawless execution invalidates the sense of challenge, and turns the game into nothing short of a meat grinder.

Unbalanced parties, the threat of mortality, the limitations of each character, the challenge of if-and-when a fight should be engaged...
Those are the things meant to create a rich and plentiful gaming environment.
Without those, really, what's the point?

I'm sorry if you disagree with my frustration. I'm sure most people in the thread this far will.
But when I hear someone demanding a pen-and-paper RPG should match terms and standards that exist because of MMOs?
I immediately flash-back to an IT term that never ceases to work: PEBKAC

I'll leave this thread now, and cease bothering you all of the 1800+ posts with my "the problem isn't the class" belief.
If you want to throw hate my way for attempting to point out the actual class problem, feel free to PM me, and I'll act the fool there rather than returning here.
(braces for the hate)


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:

first Thanks to Petty Alchemist for his thread and idea "Making the Fighter Last all Day"

second, gustavo if resource draining is a problem then take multiclassing as an option and if you go with a casting class then, save magi, you have more proficiencies than others of your casting class, and if you go divine then you can generally have a higher AC then others of your class.

That's a houserule, it has no bearing in this conversation unless your offering a way to help fighters.

Second, casters don't multiclass. It hurts them more than it helps. Spells are that powerful. Spells tend to dwarf martial classes, which is why a lot of these conversations are comparing martials to martials.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:

first Thanks to Petty Alchemist for his thread and idea "Making the Fighter Last all Day"

second, gustavo if resource draining is a problem then take multiclassing as an option and if you go with a casting class then, save magi, you have more proficiencies than others of your casting class, and if you go divine then you can generally have a higher AC then others of your class.

Yes, fighter makes for a good class dip. You take 1 or 2 levels, and you gain weapon and armor proficiencies and a pair of feats. I don't think that solves their problems as a class, though.

Quote:
Bigger totals may be better, but if you're going to gripe about "class balance and dps output", MMOs should be the field of choice.

I don't know what thread you have been reading lately, but nobody is complaining about the fighter's totals and DPR output at all. They do fine in damage.

They suck in everything else. They suck when you try to roleplay, because they plainly suck. Let's suppose I want to roleplay a noble fighter, with a knightly focus. I'd like to have some heraldry lore (knowledge nobility), some falconry (handle animal), be able to ride well (ride), be courteous (diplomacy) and empathic with peasants (sense motive). I should also be able to do a minimal competence in climb, swim, jump, etc. A single rank, just to show an athletic background and training. Of course, I should know a little about military stuff
(proffesion soldier).

You know what? I got 2 skills per level, and several of the skills mentioned above aren't even class skills.

And that was a quite modest attempt, a lowly knight. Just imagine if I try to use fighter as a class to mold Achilles, Beowulf, Sigfrid, Jaime Lannister, Boromir or Sir Lancelot.

So get off of your high horse. Nobody here is claiming for MMO and DPS balance, tanking ratios and aggro abilities. We are just asking to have a class which we can roleplay a character with, without being underwhelming.


6 people marked this as a favorite.

Your attitude is one that has baffled and infuriated me for quite some time.

"The game is story driven" in no way means the game shouldn't be balanced.

It is still a game. Imbalances are flaws in the game design that should be rectified.

Even put into elitist "TRPGS are better than vidya games" terms, that should mean they should be held to a higher standard. Especially when, while it's not easy by any stretch, balancing a pen and paper game and making modular changes to it is much, MUCH easier than doing so for a video game.

"Ignore it and pick a better one" is just sidestepping the issue: The fact that there IS one that is automatically better that should be taken while ignoring the other.

Using the excuse that "TRPGs shouldn't be balanced because ewwww MMOs" is shortsighted, detrimental to the hobby as a whole, and accomplishes nothing but rewarding laziness in the industry by showing that you don't care about the quality of the product you're buying. If you don't care, the developers have no REASON to care.

You think that's not what happens when people don't care? Look at the massive success of the Call of Duty franchise.

And if you think "Oh that's video games, that's different, it could never happen here!" you need to take a long hard look at what you're saying.


If imbalance is a flaw, and Pathfinder inherited it from D&D, it's a flaw the game has had since 1974. The Magic User was always, in the end, the most powerful class prior to 3.x. Nothing has changed there. The classes original low level weaknesses have been shored up (low hit points, one spell at 1st level, no significant weapons / armor and more xp to go up). The high level Magic User was the most powerful character. Change "Magic User" to Wizard and you're still in the same spot. The balancing factors in the old game have been reduced at low level. As he went up those flaws disappeared anyway. In any event, obviously, they did not address the imbalance between casters and martials in 3.x. If they had, people would be whining about how they had screwed up Wizards instead of Fighters.

It might be possible to narrow the gap but in a game centered on magic it is unlikely to be dealt with to the satisfaction of anyone who wants "balance" among classes.

A more attainable goal would be to give the Fighters more utility and match them up better against other martials / non-casters.

Anyway, what you see as a flaw others may just see as a core part of the game. People shouldn't chose their classes based on them being balanced or not imo. They should choose based on what they want to play.

In my opinion the flaw in 3.x is that they didn't make the Fighter the undisputed master of combat. The other martial classes gained increased utility and powers in other areas and stayed too close to the Fighter in combat ability. They should be relatively less effective in combat to make up for their gains in other areas (or the Fighters should have gained as well), but that's not likely to happen. They screwed up the Rogue in 3.x too, not by keeping him a skill monkey, but by allowing other classes to come close to matching them in that area while having other utility. Their combat abilities increased, but not enough imo to dig them out of the hole created by handing out their main ability like candy to Rangers / Bards. Other classes have, as a result, eclipsed those two iconic classes in their roles. In any event the Wizard would still be the top class for power imo (although Clerics made up a lot of ground in 3.x - but that's another thread...).

That's my rant for the day :)


3 people marked this as a favorite.
Rageling wrote:

When I read the OP say: "Fighters either need a boost to their dps so they are the king of their specialization or..."

My stomach immediately went sour. Immeadiately.

What I say to my players: "DPS is an MMO term. If you're looking for that, find someone to run a 4th Edition game for you.
If you can't learn to break that mental association, you are not welcome in my games. End of discussion."

Gross ignorance of 4E. Gross ignorance of mechanical discussion. Gross ignorance of terminology. DPS or DPR are both equally valid measurements of damage in D&D but most prefer the latter because D&D combat is broken down into rounds (which are 6 seconds of game time long). If you wish to actually determine your DPS you divide DPR by 6 to arrive at your DPS value, which is literally the amount of damage you are dealing per second during a attack routine.

Quote:
The problem isn't the class, so much as how someone's choosing to view it.

I'm sure you're going to show us how, right?

Quote:

There's this whole new wave of players who expect games with classes to be more smash-button-win, and it's depressing.

MMORPGs were born from games like D&D, yet have inadvertently poisoned the mindset required to enjoy them as they are.

Again, a gross lack of understanding about MMOs. MMOs are not button-smash-win games. Far from it. In fact, combat in games like World of Warcraft is far more akin to the combat in 3.x/Pathfinder only in real time. Classes are varied and different and you must react to changes, terrain, and situations differently, changing tactics and rarely spamming on the same ability over and over to win (something fighters are crippled to do in D&D/Pathfinder). This is especially true in PvP, but it is also true in quests and dungeons as well.

As an example, in Wrath of the Lich King, there is a series of quests that leads you down into a Nerubian hive full of undead formian-like creatures and giant spiders. There you must fight your way through the dungeon to seek their leader at the end. To do so you must go through his elite guards, down a giant spiderweb that is littered with small creepy critters that will swarm you, then through the a gargantuan spider who owns the nest, then deep into the core where you finally can face off against the undead Nerubian leader at its core. The encounter takes place atop a grand spire-platform with a deathly drop along each side. The bridge is severed during the battle. At different points during the battle the Nerubian lord burrows into the ground while his minions fly onto the platform and begin attacking you. While fighting the minions the ground beneath the platform will quake and everyone must be mindful and run away from those areas because the lord attacks blindly upwards in the area attempting to spike you and throw you off the platform.

If you try to stand there and mash a button to win you will lose. Badly. The same is true for even the healers (a role I enjoy greatly in said game) because you have to keep everyone alive while enemies are using diseases, poisons, direct damage, and casting bad spells on them (thank goodness for dispel magic).

If you're going to be negative about something at least know what you are talking about. Otherwise you look like a fool to people who actually do know something about the subject matter that you're butchering.

Quote:

The point of an RPG - Role Playing Game for those who have forgotten - is generally the story.

Classes and abilities and combat give you the means to drive it forward, but unless you're playing a battle-focal campaign, should not direct it.

For those who have forgotten, D&D originated as a tactical miniatures game, and much of the early and most famous material for it was little more than dungeon crawls to kill stuff and take treasure. Also MMOs cater to both types of gamers (most have grand stories, quests, adventures, and roleplayers; and they also appeal to people who want to bust heads; just like D&D/Pathfinder has since the dawn of its existence).

Quote:

How much energy is wasted trying to change something tons of people are happy with, when you alone (or in small groups) disagree?

Wouldn't that energy be better spent finding something that actually does fit your preferences?
Or even finding a way to make it work for you?

Nary a drop of sweat is wasted on trying to attain and deliver truth. Our posts here and our observations are shared with others because this is a public forum and we can collectively discuss pros, cons, and potential methods of fixing them even for house-rule purposes.

Some of us are vested in trying to get some official support because while many of us can house-rule things like Fighters and Monks, many people enjoy playing Pathfinder society where house rules are left at the door. I'm not personally (I don't play PFS) but I understand their pains out of sympathy.

For me personally, it's because I've seen enough people fall into traps enough times over the 13 years this game has been out and I can soundly say that if I can aid someone - especially someone new to the game - in avoiding pitfalls or at least knowing what they can or should expect from their options then it's worthwhile.

Quote:

There's talk about giving fighters a way to heal themselves.

MMO logic really has little to no place in Pathfinder and similar RPGs, again, except for 4th Edition, which is intentionally built to be like that.

Well barbarians can heal themselves. Hit points are both a measurement of raw endurance and an abstraction (which is really bizarre I will admit but it's damn fun). If a fighter could heal himself or virtually heal himself then it wouldn't step on anyone's toes. There was a feat in 3.5 called Stone Power. It allowed the Fighter to use a Power-Attack-like penalty to attack rolls to get temporary HP each round. An option similar to this can show a fighter for how enduring he is as he shrugs off minor bruises, burns, and so forth.

Technically nobody heals in 4E by the way. At least not in core. Every "healing" effect just uses your healing surges which everyone uses, which at best is to describe "I help him take a breather". :P

Quote:

It's easy to see it as someone who has-done/is-doing both.

A fight in a PC Game: Tank soaks hits, DPS nuke down, healer keeps tank up.

That level of flawless execution invalidates the sense of challenge, and turns the game into nothing short of a meat grinder.

Again a gross ignorance of most MMOs. While this may be true for trash enemies that are easily dispatched, but in major MMOs like World of Warcraft and Star Wars the Old Republic this sort of activity does not work past low levels. And it doesn't work at-all when a human mind is controlling the encounter as occurs in player versus player combat (which is what all of D&D/Pathfinder is, as instead of an AI system you have a player who makes decisions for all the NPCs in the way that the player believes they should act).

But again, tank & spank is indeed a term, but it is something that is progressively harder to do as these games progress. Likely because the designers of these games expect the players to learn and adapt over time as they become more comfortable playing their classes; thus you'll have the basics down when the major enemies decides it's fun to make you dodge exploding ice shards on the ground, attempt to blow you off a mountain with force-blasts, or leave the battlefield entirely to rain fire, missiles, spells, or frost breath on your party while you're scrambling for cover so you don't die. Or when they mind-control members of your team. Or when they withdraw and throw minions at you from every direction (and you get to enjoy watching your priest running around like a scared little girl).

Mortal Schoolhouse Kombat Rock said it best.
KNOWLEDGE IS POWER

Sovereign Court

2 people marked this as a favorite.
Pathfinder Adventure Path, Lost Omens, Rulebook Subscriber

I prefer healing too. Dranei resto shammy.

Space goat!

topic? Oh! Um...

My favorite archetype is the intelligent mage/fighter. My perfect class would be the arcane equivalent of a Paladin. Mostly fighter, a little magic, to help with the fighting. Fighters, as is? I dont' know if I could ever bring myself to play one, because the class is so painful. I made a good fighter mage in a Kirthfinder game. I would be willing to play a fighter in a heavily house ruled game like that, I think. But that's about it.

Sad, really. I like smashing things. Or pretending to smash things.

Shadow Lodge

@Ashiel: good point that Pathfinder is a combat based game and that the flying cleric tank can be done differently. The difference between your design and mine is that if you take a N, LN, or CN, deity then there is a feat called versatile channeller that lets you channel both energy instead of just one. This way you can be effective against undead (at 13th level they're rolling just for 10 to beat the disruption DC in the campaigns I'm playing in) But you also deal massive damage to living with your channel. Also this way you can take angel blood and angel wings to fly and be able to not be as bad against flying creatures or reverse gravity. But thats just for my campaigns.

@MrSin: If you want a more balanced fighter then either allow the house rule for your games and ask GMs, or send in to paizo asking for the fast healing to be an archetype that replaces armor training.

@everyone who wants a fighter thats as good as a ranger: If you have an archery ranger and the enemy casts entropic sheild or other spells that make ranged attacks hard to use. Then you built a character for range so for optimized play, which seems to me the full purpose of this thread, you won't be as effective in melee unless its one of your favored enemies. And if melee is unavailable then TWF is useless. For instance flying monsters that just don't attack you and go for ranged or flying opponents that are more annoying. With a fighter you can easily approach both melee and ranged because all he needs is point-blank shot and precise shot, maybe far shot, combined with good strength and a melee weapon.

@those who want to solve the main problem with fighters: Petty Alchemist's solution will work if we send into paizo to make it a legitimate archetype and ask gms to ask if we can use it.

Although you won't get fighters beating wizard, they will balance out with other martials.


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:

@everyone who wants a fighter thats as good as a ranger: If you have an archery ranger and the enemy casts entropic sheild or other spells that make ranged attacks hard to use. Then you built a character for range so for optimized play, which seems to me the full purpose of this thread, you won't be as effective in melee unless its one of your favored enemies. And if melee is unavailable then TWF is useless. For instance flying monsters that just don't attack you and go for ranged or flying opponents that are more annoying. With a fighter you can easily approach both melee and ranged because all he needs is point-blank shot and precise shot, maybe far shot, combined with good strength and a melee weapon.

Rangers make for better switch hitters than fighters. You don't need to go TWF with a ranger. They are perfectly fine using a two handed sword with power attack, no need for more. And Favored enemy (and Instant Favored enemy spell) work for both the bow and the sword, while fighter has to buy weapon specialization and take different weapon trainings


ArmouredMonk13 wrote:
@MrSin: If you want a more balanced fighter then either allow the house rule for your games and ask GMs, or send in to paizo asking for the fast healing to be an archetype that replaces armor training.

Your not reading what I'm saying are you? Fast healing won't fix the fighter, just give him more longevity. The fighters problems aren't longevity and combat, so much as it is his highly limited options in and out of combat. The advertisement isn't necessary. Paizo likely doesn't care much about the fact its imbalanced, and they've avoided handing out fasting healing like candy. Its a great idea for a certain kind of game, but not every one, especially simulationist(which I guess is what they were going for?)


Rageling wrote:
What I say to my players: "DPS is an MMO term. If you can't learn to break that mental association, you are not welcome in my games."

Well
Bye

Shadow Lodge

Fast Healing makes them less of a resource sponge and it is delayed 1 minute that overlaps so they are able to heal like paladins/rangers/barbarians. They don't have a limit to how much this is used but don't heal fast or in combat so it balances for Paizo to not overpower and for players that want them to equal other martial which they are closer to (again save magus because they can be ridiculous good).


So why did we get on the topic of MMOs? They follow a different gaming idea. If you have imbalance in MMOs it becomes "why would you even play that class?" and you can't hide behind "its narrative!" There is also a weird Tank/heals/deeps trinity that pops up, though some games adhere to it differently than others(In Vindictus every class is self sufficient, in GW2 its support/control/damage). MMOs I've played tend to vary, but WoW was mostly about positioning(stop standing in green stuff, its acid and kills you!), and Vindictus is all about timing your dodge/block mechanic. TERA had a bit of both. I guess we could talk about analogies to fighters, but there are some pretty big differences. Namely that people just stop playing a class that sucks, usually due to peer pressure from the competitive crowd who knows they have to rely on you to finish the dungeon.

Shadow Lodge

@Jess Door: look into Magus for arcane paladin. Its as close as you get without obscure prestige classes.

1,851 to 1,900 of 3,805 << first < prev | 33 | 34 | 35 | 36 | 37 | 38 | 39 | 40 | 41 | 42 | 43 | next > last >>
Community / Forums / Pathfinder / Pathfinder First Edition / General Discussion / The Main Problem with Fighters All Messageboards